Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Rossdales bailiffs-Liers, tried to remove car which is not ours!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5623 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi. I'm new to this site so just bare with me!! I have had the day from hell today and i don't know how many times i have been reduced to tears from the dreaded Rossendales. 14 days ago we were contacted about a council tax debt which we had forgotten all about as they had been chasing us at a very old address, even though the council were fully aware we had moved, by a Rossendale Bailiff, to call her ignorant would be polite. Obviously we did not let her into the property but she stood at the front door demanding over 700.00 there and then. Like everyone else i accept my debts but i am a 'can't pay' and not a 'won't pay' so we offered full payment of one of the debts and then offered to settle the second debt with a p.a. She point blank refused our offer and then advised she would be putting a Levy charge on a car which was not ours!! When she left i called the dreaded call centre (was on hold for over an hour!) and asked why this was. They advised me she can make an assumption that a car parked on the opposite side of a busy terraced road no where near our property was therefore ours! We found this very funny seen as though neither myself or my partner can drive!...anyways, stupidy we just ignored it as i thoought they can't remove a car which is not ours!...anyways today we get a call from the Bailiff saying she will remove the car at 5pm, obviously then i begin to panick, i was more concerned over what the neighbour or resident would do to us when they found out it was being removed because of our debt, so hastily i rang the call centre. Again the agent advised she HAD the right to remove a car without doing any checks on the vehicle first and it was down to me to prove the car is not mine, now call me stupid, but how do i prove something is not mine??!! We live very close to a busy town centre, i don't even know whos the car is, it could be anyone's and im not going knocking on everybodys door asking them to hand me their car documents, who would?..i asked to speak to a manager who was very very rude, and advised me that although they employ the bailiffs they cannot have any influence on their decision?!! AGAIN the manager said the bailiff had the right to remove the car without ANY checks!...at my wits end i searched this site and found a really good website on debt advise and i gave them a call....straight away she advised me they cannot touch the car without doing a DVLA check to find out who the owner is, which is obviously not me!!! and that if we offered a part payment (or full payment of one debt) then they should then accept a p.a for the rest of the debt....

Another thing that really annoyed me was that the Bailiff informed us she was coming today but we had 200.00 for her on Friday, we called the contact centre, the bailiff god only knows how many times and she refused once again to come an collect the money!

We have now written a complaint to Rossendales and the council offering full payment of the debt on the 15/12/08 but only to the council as the bailiff had charged us incorrectly, putting on two call out charges with a van when only been the once, and also the levy on a car which was not ours, our starting debt was 507.20 with the council but the bailiff reconed we owed over 700.00!! when we challenged her for a breakdown over the phone she then advised that we didn't owe that much and it was about the 500.00 mark!!

 

I cannot believe how much trouble i have had with these ignorant low life people and i cannot believe that they have lied to us over and over, i am just giving a heads up to everyone on here of what they can be like, but we have not signed or allowed entry to our property at any point, and if they do put a levy against a car which is not yours do not give into their bully boy tactics!!

 

sorry about it being so long

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello nutty.

 

Your first error was to be worried about someone elses car. You told them it wasn't yours and that is the end of your obligation.

The owner would have reported it stolen and the police would have investigated, but you wouldn't have been in any trouble.

 

I can't see why they have come in a van as you say you have not let them in so no levy can have been taken so no need for a van. Dispute this part.

 

There are no proper regulation of bailiff fees, but they must be reasonable and in proportion to the amount being collected.

 

If the council says they can't accept your payment, lots don't want to be bothered once bailiffs are involved, then pay it online.

They cannot reasonably refuse an offer of payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report them to your local MP. Janet Anderson, isn't it? Rossendales got an award for business practice, their web site says...Rossendales (Collect) can help and has a dedicated team whose strong negotiation techniques and persistence help improve our clients’ (Council) collection rates beyond their expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...